Susan
was diagnosed with breast cancer on Oct. 13, 1989 at the age of 35. A devoted
wife and mother of two sons, she was a strong Texan.

When
the doctors at MD Anderson Cancer Center told Susan that the cancer she was
facing was particularly aggressive and that she would not live beyond five
years, she did not fall into despair. She endured six rounds of chemo,
radiation treatments, countless surgeries, all the while retaining her humor
and optimism.

When
a clinical trial of a new drug called Taxotere became available, Susan raised
her hand to be patient No. 1. While the initial results were promising, the
research for the drug was in its infancy, and ultimately Taxotere was unable to
save her life.

Susan
Carol Crenshaw — my mother — died when I was 10 years old. My mom knew that
this clinical trial would mean a small extension on her life at best. She knew
that Taxotere would not ultimately save her life, but that her trial would
provide doctors like Peter Ravdin — who led the clinical trial — the scientific
research they needed to improve the drug and save the lives of others.

Taxotere is now one of the most successful breast cancer treatments
available, thanks to the invaluable research following my mom’s trial. Last
week, I presented Dr. Ravdin an award in my mom’s name at my second annual
Health Care Innovation Summit at Rice University.

The summit celebrated something that is characteristically
American: the spirit to discover, create and innovate. We heard from remarkable
Texans who are tirelessly innovating the next great breakthrough to deliver
hope to patients and families across the country.

But the same innovation we celebrated in Houston is coming
under threat because of policies in Washington.

Two things can be true at once. First, health care is far too
expensive in the United States. Second, American innovation in the health care
space is absolutely critical for ensuring that medicine continues to advance.
But the recently proposed drug pricing legislation from House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, H.R. 3, sacrifices the discovery of future cures. How? By instituting
radical price controls on new drugs.

The estimated impacts of Pelosi’s plan vary. The Congressional Budget Office says that the legislation will result in 30 fewer drugs over the next decade. The White House Council for Economic Advisers says 100 fewer drugs will be available. The California Life Sciences Association estimates that H.R. 3 would reduce by 88 percent the number of drugs brought to market by small health care innovators in the Speaker’s home state of California.

The truth is, we do not know how many drugs will be lost. But
we do know that one fewer cure is one too many. The next great breakthrough
could be snuffed out before it saves a single life.

Why will this happen? H.R. 3 would institute price controls
under the misleading label of “negotiation.” If a drug maker does not agree
with the price set by the federal government for a drug, they can be penalized
with a tax of up to 95 percent of revenue (yes, revenue, not profit),
which is terrifying to those who have ever operated a business. That is top-down
hostage taking, not a negotiation, and new cures are the victim.

As revenues for pharmaceutical companies are slashed in
response to price controls, research and development expenditures will also
fall, sending drug companies scrambling for low-risk, low-cost projects. As Dr.
Scott Gottlieb, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, noted
recently in the Wall
Street Journal, drug companies are going to sniff out “safer projects with
lesser payoffs,” avoiding the “most speculative but highest-value science,
including regenerative medicine and gene editing.” In other words, drug
companies may choose to develop and manufacture just another cholesterol pill
while avoiding costlier and riskier cancer research.

Thankfully, this plan for fewer drugs isn’t our only option. I
believe we can lower your drug costs at the pharmacy counter and encourage the
kind of innovation that cancer patients like my mom need.

H.R. 19 would increase patient access to generic competition
through a variety of measures, including a prohibition on the “pay for delay”
agreements that pharmaceutical companies often strike with generic competitors
to prevent lower-cost alternatives from entering the market.

The bill also creates the first-ever annual cap of $3,100 on
out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors on Medicare Part D, and a monthly cap for
Medicare beneficiaries with high drug costs to help evenly distribute expenses
across the year (reducing payment shocks). The out-of-pocket costs for insulin
also would be capped at $50 per month for seniors in Medicare Part D after the
deductibles are paid. Targeted reforms to pharmaceutical spending provide
savings to pay for the caps.

In addition to increased exposure to generic competition, our
plan encourages transparency by requiring insurance companies to provide
information about drug costs at the physician’s office, giving you the flexibility
to “shop around” prior to receiving a prescription.

It is critical to lower your costs at the pharmacy counter —
Americans pay too much for prescription drugs. It’s also critical that we
preserve the spirit of innovation that has driven so much medical discovery and
consequently, saved so many lives in this country. H.R. 19 implements
commonsense reforms to achieve these two goals, which are not mutually
exclusive.

Americans are being offered a false choice: lower drug costs
or more innovative cures. Democrats in Congress want you to choose. I want you
to have both.